I think an important aspect of the movement-image in cinema is that it happens in duration. Deleuze says that duration is change, that it changes and does not stop changing. Cinema gives us a movement-image because it expresses a duration which changes, producing a qualitative change in the (open) whole. Such a qualitative change suggests to me something made new – a newness that is its own movement, not simply a reconstituted movement reproduced on a screen. In this way I also think that the movement of a film is never trapped but is always in relation between the various sets, objects, the viewer, etc. I have trouble with the idea of duration though, because I don’t know where to find its end. A film has an identifiable length, but it also continues with me after the reel has stopped. But what continues? Does the movement-image of cinema occur only in specific duration outside of myself or can the duration be stretched out beyond the identifiable time-length of the film?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What is duration? A second? A day? One life-time? No matter how much it lasts, duration always carries a gift - quality - that stays only enough time to imprint itself into matter. And if the movement-image can communicate its intrinsic quality, then… what remains is not exactly movement-image, but the merging of the object and the subject into the quality embedded in this relation. When duration is not quantitative but qualitative, it unfolds itself inward – it infolds meaning into infinity.
“En réalité, une creation, quelle qu’elle soit, est ce qui se détache de la source originelle de façon telle que l’élément créateur se transforme en la chose créée.”
Albert Soesman, Les Douze Sens, Triades, Paris, 1998, p. 201.
Post a Comment